Probably because it hurts its position either in court or during negotiations with the DoW.

Right, I was hoping for Anthropic to stand its ground a bit more. There’s quite a bit of “ring kissing” undertones in today’s memo.

▲

doom2 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As much as Trump and Hegseth would like it to be called the Department of War, it still takes an act of Congress to change the name of the Department of Defense. No reason to call it by anything else until that happens.

▲

postalrat a day ago | parent | next [-]

Department of peace sounds even better than defense.

▲

skeptic_ai 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They are pacifiers. Kills everything until it’s pacified.

▲

MagicMoonlight 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No it doesn’t, it sounds like newspeak.

	▲	scotty79 17 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Departament of defense sounds like a newspeak for a country that was not in any danger of being invaded for a century or more and all the wars abroad it participated in, it entered pretty much by choice. Department of war is way more accurate.
	▲	KingMob 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm pretty sure they're being sarcastic

▲

SV_BubbleTime 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is such a foot stomping childish thing to get caught up on. It does not at all matter what a dept is called. Try to get over the extremely superficial.

	▲	wokwokwok 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		On the other hand, the parent post is entirely correct. What, I ask, is the point of having laws and rules if you can just ignore the ones you don't like? Its just a name, who cares? Not me. …but, if you break the law, you break the law. Not maybe maybe who cares, its not me being water boarded, I dont care… If you break the law. You break the law. Otherwise, who gives a duck what congress says? Just fire them all and crown Trump King of America. I’m being facetious. …but maybe its more of a big deal than you superficially pretend it is. It’s just another case of the administration blatantly breaking the rules. …so, you know. If youre ok with no laws or rules, I guess its fine. Seems a bit chaotic to me. I prefer my governing body to be… marginally bound by some kind of responsibilty to something or someone.

▲

ipnon a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this is one of the weaknesses of rationalism and effective altruism, is that it tries to make a clean break from the common law legal reasoning that the government, and thus corporations, operate on. While I find rationalism to be a useful lens, the fact is that the common law legal framework is totally dominant, and so these deontological arguments made rationally collapse very quickly when translated to the dominant framework.

	▲	xvector 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To be fair, common law and the current system are totally fucking dumb. Everyone that has come up with it and perpetuates it should be ashamed of themselves.